Nikon D4 overview

Like its predecessor, the Nikon D4 looks as if it’s going to be an incredibly impressive camera. Nikon has looked to its professional user-base and tried to work out what it needed to add or adjust on a camera that just a couple of years ago represented the best they were capable of. The result is a camera with few big changes but a extensive series of small improvements.

The biggest change is, of course, the improvement in video capabilities. Given the increasing demand for video footage from professional photographers, and the incredible success of Canon’s 5D Mark II in the professional video market, it was inevitable that Nikon’s pro flagship would need to offer a more compelling feature set than the existing models.

Beyond this, the changes to the stills-shooting specifications are relatively modest – there’s a higher-resolution, 16.2MP, full-frame CMOS sensor and the ability to shoot at 10 frames per second with autofocus, but that’s about it. The new chip's capability has prompted Nikon to offer an ISO range from 100-12,800 that can then be extended to 50 – 204,800 (Hi4). The significant changes, beyond video, are a profusion of smaller tweaks, additions and improvements to what was already a well worked-out camera. These include a carbon fiber shutter rated to 400,000 actuations that can fire at up to 1/8000th of a second.

The biggest technical changes are the addition of a 91,000 pixel ‘metering’ sensor, replacing the 1005 pixel example used up until now. This sensor is used for much more than just metering, playing a key role in subject tracking, white balance and 'Active D-lighting' (a trick Canon seems impressed with, given the appearance of a similar system in the 1DX). The higher-resolution sensor allows the camera to offer face detection when shooting through the optical viewfinder.

Then there are the ergonomic changes to the camera’s body. Again like Canon’s 1DX, moves have been made to make the ergonomics of portrait-orientation shooting more closely resemble those of shooting in landscape format. The camera no longer features a dedicated AFL button, instead gaining push-button joysticks for both the vertical and landscape shooting orientations. An additional rubberized lump has also been added to provide a better grip in the vertical orientation and an additional function button added next to the vertical shutter button.

Comments

"If you're not a full time pro, or the price of a new camera matters, then no, you'll do just fine with a used D3. The D4s won't take pictures any different than a D7000, which has the same resolution; the D4s just does it faster. See Is It Worth It for more."

Euh...I have a d7000 and look for a FF with very good Iso performance . But I wander if this is really true! Everywhere else, Ii read the opposite ...

The D4 is perfect for me. I am selling my D3s. I use 8+fps shooting speeds regularly. I shoot at 50,000 ISO regularly. Black cat in a coal mine stuff. The D800 frame rate is waaaay to slow, and the ISO peaks too early.

I shoot very little video but the D4 wins out for other reason I have yet to see confidently addressed, such as:-Easier layout of controls for video use-Backlit buttons-Faster motor (even 1fps more helps out)-Cleaner lines

Yup, I splurged and got it. I'm sure my subjects will not know the difference, but when I get that one shot it will all be worth the while.

come on! you shoot 8fps regulary? fine. but upgrade a camera for 1 fps higher? from what i'v seen, you shoot conferences and events and stuff, you dont need 8-9 fps!you shoot at 50,000 ISO regularly? bulls*it! not the D3s or the D4 are useable at that high ISO.so dont give me all this bullsh*t about how you push the best gear on the market to it's limits and get amazing shots out of it.dont look for an excuse to upgrade to a D4... you have a ton of lenses? you have a ton of money? go ahead, no one cares... from what i've seen you need to work on your composition and post instead of spending your time writing how cool you are and how you shoot 50,000 iso at 8 fps with your D3s on forums...

I shoot 6fps regularly, that is my "normal" speed. I can manage single frames with 6fps too. When I want faster with the D3s I went to 8, I am now adept at 10 with the D4. And yes I have used it. What on?Controlled crashesDogfightStuntsAir acrobaticsFalling object acceleration graphics... and a few others.

Some places do not allow flash. Even the conference pics would lose their glow if I used a flash, so up goes the ISO. I shoot at 3200 regularly but have gone higher for all the shots in darker places.

My conference and event pics are online to share with the attendees and public. You need a password to logon to the site to see the rest of my work, but that is up to the clients.

Can I live with 9fps or 8fps? Yes. I can "live" with a Yashica T4 if I have to make do with what I have. But it's nice to have options.

I upgraded for more than 1fps and after re-reading my review I see that it was rather short, I could have done a lot better, but we are limited in characters here.

Have been shooting with D4 for a few days now, great and responsive camera, my best yet. Fortunately this is a loaner: it has frozen up twice. Seems to work but will not fire, will not turn off either. Green light burning claiming that data processing is going on. This happened during just normal shooting, nothing like continuous 10 fps. Only way is to cold boot by taking the battery out. Has there been any reports about this. This might be a pre-production sample: A:1.00 B:1.00 L:1.004.

I got mine Friday - can only recommend it !Controlling it with iPad (3) works via Ethernet, too.Beautiful colors, great ISO. 12800 in real low light situations (not this crap with 1/8000s at 12800 ISO) is gorgeous!

@marzal- hahahah! Will the f100 hold up?! It's a beast! They are built like tanks and quite weather proof. The only down side is the more limited AF and frame rate, vs a "pro" single digit camera. But heck, if you want the frame rate, the f5 is cheaper than a D60 these days.

Hmmm... Let's say you ONLY shoot 50,000 frames over the course of 3-4 years: 50,000/36 exposures = 1,388 rolls of film at an over all cost of $5 per roll (film, processing, tax...) and that's if you're not buying expensive black and white stuff film, etc..

So that puts you at practically $7,000 in film alone. The F100 is a heck of a buy- but how is the 12,800 ISO, 10fps, and video going to work out for you? ;)

Does anyone know why Nikon have posted 20+ MB sample images for D800 and 120kB samples for the D4? I can't make sense of it, and this makes me wary that they are trying to hide something in terms of the D4 IQ.

I don't know for sure but I would assume that being that a major feature of a D800 is the ridiculously high resolution, it is much more important to *show* larger sample images whereas the D4 has a much more average megapixel size (therefore HUGE samples would be less beneficial.)

Why Did NIKON put USB 3.0 ON D800 and USB 2.0 on D4. Also, the D4 has an ETHERNET PORT but why? NIKON seems confused as to what it's for! The camera is 802.11b,g & n compatible, but that is not what the ethernet port is for. The WT-5 transmitter adds $1,000.00 to the D4. They weren't very forthcoming with that information either. They don't say if the WT-4 unit is backward compatible as that would have been quite a cost saving measure. And as far as uploading your images without a computer, sure you can with the Transmitter and an IPHONE. By the way, IPHONE can upload it's own photos as well, and has been for some time now. Making the camera "WI-FI" CARD compatible would have cut the cost. One other thing-NIKON says since they are a Global company, they may be built in any of the NIKON plants. That may be fine until the FIRMWARE UPDATES need to be done, that will be done by serial number & BUILT-IN PLANT And by the way, this is no "fire sale" there's no reason to rush. .. JOE PRETE

So that pro hockey shooters like myself can have an ethernet drop cable down on the arena floor to ftp my photos up to the team's server. I specifically purchased my D4 for ethernet. I can shoot the hockey game, tag my photos as the period goes on and when the period ends, simply plug my camera into the cat 5 cable and away they go in seconds! It's a fantastic camera and I've used it for 9 months now.

The D4 should be perfect for me. My studio is seeing a huge increase in the demand for cinematography. The file size for stills is prefered, the 75mb NEF's from the D800 would be insane to manage in quanities we pull down at weddings. I need rock solid AF in the dark, clean hi-iso, and a meter that can handle highly dynamic shooting environments. Lastly the new wifi setup is killer.

That being said i have a D800E on order for my portriat, commercial, and video work, it will be the perfect companion for the D4.

Now on to the bad list....

Only USB 2, top iso is HI-4 (wtf), no built in GPS (mostly a D800 complaint), different card slots (im cool with XQD but just put in two slots).

I'd like to pre-order a Nikon D4.Do you know if I have a chance to receive it before June (if ordered today)?I suppose there are too much pre-orders by well-known stores like Adorama, BH or Amazon. Your advices are welcome.

I think you'll get a more firm answer from the store you are buying the camera. Like with anything else there are no guarantees but the longer you wait the lesser the chance you will get it on the day you need it.

@kayone - It was an innocuous question from someone who obviously does not know that much about camera technology as you do, so not sure why you felt compelled to attack. Moreover, this was not a troll question as I was hoping to get a insightful reply from one place or the other.@yabokkie - thanks!

With more pixels is it going have more noise over the D3s at high ISO.I have my doughts. Who cares about pixie count, noise is what degrades the image quality.Dunno if I should grab a D3s while I can or wait till I see true evidenceThat the d4 has improved noise levels.

depends on what noise. if you compare pixel to pixel, yes more pixels mean more noise at pixel level, but not necessarily at image level (same area on the sensor).

actually smaller pixels can provide better per area performance that in the future, we may have way more pixels on the sensor far beyond any lens can resolute, not for resolution but for better performance like DR or SNR (per area).

Please post these quick as many of us are holding back purchase. I for one, am keen to buy either the D4 or 1D-X, or even the D800 if released this month, but wouldn't dare put my money where my mouth is until I have read the indepth review on this site.

Thanks Ron007. I am actually familiar with the difference between public & private ip addresses. Would you happen to know if it is a public ip, or is the statement "in principle you could operate it from a different continent" from an author who doesn't know the ramifications?

You don't seem to know how these things work. If every device with such a capability stared to ship with a public IP address, we will need IPV8 within a year. That's not how things are supposed to work. Do some reading on basics of networking.

Devices typically use DHCP, so IP addresses get assigned dynamically, optionally dependent on the MAC address. The dynamically assigned IP could be RFC1918 (private) or public.

Even private IP addresses can be accessed worldwide, if desired, by using NAT, tunneling, proxying etc.

Especially the idea of one poster is funny: devices are not shipped with preassigned IP addresses. Since IPs, netmask and gateway must match the network they are being used on. Routing needs to be considered.

And yes, IPv6 solves the problem of limited address space. Asigning IPs to every thinkable device is no longer a problem as far as available IPs are concerned.

I have been shooting with film SLR cameras for many years, and just recently purchased my first digital (Canon Powershot S100) and really enjoying the convenience and range of options/utilities. I am keen to graduate to APSC or FF DSLR (maybe the D4 or 1D-X if budget permits), and will really appreciate if someone could tell me what softwares I should have for processing RAW, and what is the best hardware configuration to go for in order to support these softwares?

I highly recommend Adobe photoshop Lightroom. If you are interested in trying it out, there is a public beta right now that a simple google search should find for you. If you are on a mac, you can try out aperture but honestly I have no preference and would take either of the two.

As to the best hardware configuration, you will find that you want a solid multicore processor and a fast hard drive. A raid array if you can. I also recommend that you put some money into your graphics card, seeing as a lot of features these days are GPU accelerated.

I'm surprised no one commented on the fact the D4 requires a new kind of battery. Besides that, it took Nikon long enough! Anyone with a D3, who tried out a D7000 would find a lot to like about this smaller, lighter body with better low light. I hope the D4 is even better. I am also surprised the D4 stuck with CF cards. Most computers come with slots for SD cards now. I'll wait a bit, when the price comes down. I sold my D3 and D3x in anticipation.

The D4 requires a new battery because of new Japanese regulations. The D3 is better in low light than the pro-sumer D7000. Size and weight of D3S/D4 are about the same. D4 also has the all new card format.

CF cards are easier to deal with. You don't have to worry about exposed contact elements like an SD card. It makes it easy to throw the full card in your pocket. I'll take one less thing to worry about on the job over a slight convenience while working in the office any day. I'm not familiar with the xqd yet.

On the other hand, you don't have to worry about bent pins in SD card slots, and SD card contacts are much easier to clean if they ever get dirty. If dirt gets into the little holes on a CF card, cleaning looks like a nightmare.

Maybe its just me, but why are we putting video on DSLr's ? For one the video isnt good at all and the sound is garbage, yeah it might be good if there was somehting you really wanted to get a video of, but why wouldnt you just take a picture instead ? I feel like its only going to make the cost of the camera more expensive for something that is obsolete. If i want to spend 6k+ on a camera thats going to shoot video then im going to buy a video camera, not a DSLR.

Please correct me if i am wrong. If the camera is recording video then the sensor is constantly working. Over the life time of the camera will this have more wear on the camera than just taking pictures ?

Finally, I am currently a nikon user and have been for a while. But does it seem like nikon is playing catchup with the MP ? I know nikon has amazing metereing and color realization but seeing as a shoot sports its would be nice to be able to crop a shot i wasnt perfectly framed on and not decrease my image qual as much.

calm down, I said neither Nikon or Canon have the technology (it looks that onchip parallel ADC is required for fast readout), and I won't take side with either Nikon or Canon (or Sony who has the technology) because I am only a user.

Lots of photojournalists are now having to shoot stills and video. That's a major market for this camera. So how convenient would that be to only have to carry one camera? I personally don't use video on my camera and find it useless, but that's not the case with everyone.

The MP battle is more marketing than anything. I personnaly wouldn't want anything larger than 16MP and would be just fine with 12. I prefer to shoot RAW for certain things and don't like massive files to consume my card memory.

Anyway, that's my two cents from a different perspective. Hope it helps

...because paying customers sometimes ask for some video to be produced with the shots - especially with architectural work. This basically saves me from having to carry two devices, which is more than welcome by a lot of shooters. I used to agree with you - UNTIL I started having to turn away work.

Shooting videos is VERY different from shooting stills at professional level. I doubt a professional will really use it as a still + video camera. At that level equipments tend to be specialized, not generic.

Hi Shockrr - Video capability on DSLRs is the logical thing to do. I agree with you that if you were spending 6k on a video camera, you wouldn't buy a dslr - but the 5d mk ii is only 2 grand. It shoots full HD from a full-frame sensor with access to a massive array of beautiful lenses. Whilst it may never (yet) have the same footage quality as a film camera, it produces remarkable results. Nikon have never released a DSLR of the capability AND price point of the mark ii, and given this recent release I don't think they ever will.

Just search vimeo for 5d mark ii and you'll see some great results.

Sound is always garbage on inbuilt microphones. If you want good sound that requires external equipment, regardless of the camera.

Your comment about 'why wouldn't you just take a picture instead' is ridiculous and you should think that through a bit further next time.

It can only be a good thing. If the professional video market is threatened by still cameras, then that should see improvments in both fields. I would like to see exactly how much this feature costs to the consumer, Im sure it will be an insignificant % of the to total R&D of this camera.

@CADIGITAL I agree with your comment on resolution. Anyone needed to print massive for a living should really consider MF.

1. How much does it cost to put video into a camera? Nothing, because cameras already have the fastest processor the body and current state of tech will allow. R&D is basically the only thing that the money goes into, which is void if 100 people buy the camera

2. Option #2, for those who feel that they are paying for video: Manufacturer starts creating two different processors (increase mftg cost), to create one unit that sells at the base price with no video and another that sells for $100? more? This is not practical as it would decrease margin on both units resulting in less profitability.

3. While there are a few benefits to having a camcorder, most consumer to prosumer level audiences get more "bang for the buck" with a DSLR. Moreover, with increasing tech and processor speed, any deficits DSLRs have now is likely to become marginal in the near future.

first of all, video is a thing thats just possible now, you cant manufacture it cheaper because its lack of video functions. because its implemented with software, the sensor readout is fast enough, the cpu is fast enough and the cards of course

and secondly, you are right, its just you :)

i dont know ANY reason why i should deactivate functions that a product would be capable of^^ thats sony/panasonic style

when the d4 has the cpu/sensor power to theoretically do video, then i want it .. for 6k i want everything implemented thats possible :)

PHOTOboy73, what planet are you on? Voice control for a professional camera? I'd like to see how that would work at a wedding, or business presentation, or photographing wildlife to mention just a few photography applications. Do you actually shoot in the real world, or just sit on forums dreaming up stupid ideas?

I think he got the point,in my place, we are using that voice control recognition on camera

we hire a photographer,we tell him what to do, if we want him to take photos,we call him and he come,if we want him to re-take the shots,we tell him and he will recognize my voice as I am the onewho pay himand if I think pictures already enough, I can easily said some commandand he will shutdown from taking pictures

becasue the RAW files are cooked differently, you won't be able to tell even you have them (or read DxO reports). the test will need two cameras shooting through the same lens (like 50/1.4S) at well controlled conditions and the result is, again, only a word.

for me I don't think it give me much over my current D3 and D3x combination as a widlife photogapher, it seems to me is more biased towards moving image capture...... at that price i will not be buying one..

Face and Nipple recognition?! I did not see that, that is pure genius. If a camera had that mode I would be first in the line. I agree with these guys in London it is underwhelming and has no inovation.

Sorry that makes no sense, here is the link:www.photography-factory.co.uk/photographyreviews/2012/01/nikon-d4-review-the-wrong-camera-too-late-16mp-1080p-30-hd-video-iso-12000-xqd-is-that-it-v-canon-5d-hasselblad-h4d-pentax-d645/

@HowaboutRAW - How can you not see they are clearly saying that Nikon are holding back technology for profit? It is obvious that we no longer need two Cameras (D4 and D4x) to do the job when one chip could easily do both tasks , Hasselblad and others have accomplished this by having a large chip with a reduced quality stetting for low light/low noise/high speed. Plus I am convinced that voice control would be very useful to me. There is no room on the modern DSLR body for more buttons. Nikon took off the AE button. To me the idea of saying ""lock exposure"" with your eye up to the viewfinder would be amazingly useful. My iPhone can understand voice already with 100% accuracy, why not my camera? Nikon are they best out there. I can remember when the F4 came out it was a revelation, filled with great ideas and new tech, the D4 is a joke by comparison. I do not care how much technology is used to convey my ideas into the camera, what I personally dislike is excessive automation.

The primary market for this camera is photojournalists. This a professional-working photographers rig. These photogs typically prefer low-light capabilities over high rez. This camera has enough resolving power for web, newspaper and magazine work. You can even make a nice 16x20 print (easy) for an exhibition.

The camera has a computer inside with a webserver, that can be used to remotely take and see the pictures from the Internet. I'm not sure that's something the D3s has, but for some that's a valuable feature, furthermore multiple of them can be sync, and one can be the Master over other cameras. This means taking shots from different sides at exactly the same time.

Looks to me like an interesting feature (that of course many here will trash and complain about). If this is hackable or Nikon plays their cards right, for sure that computer will mean the development of a larger set of features!

maybe 40MP, 50MP, or more (a lot more hundreds of MPs). there is no proof smaller pixel sizes affect picture quality, except at highest ISO settings. actually the 1.x micron pixel sensors in point-and-shoots outperform D3S on per area basis, in both SNR and dynamic range (but it will be very costly to make the sensors as large as 35mm FF).

there are several reasons Canon and Nikon chose less pixels. one is neither company have the technology to readout at high speed with low noise (Sony has it). another is for sports and photojournalism, there are always subject blurs which make high resolution exposure very difficult.

the result? we will see one day 8K (30MP) video cameras kick these shame "flagship cameras" out of the market, in 10 years time.

smaller pixel, less pixel quality, no problem with that. the image quality (or SNR at the same resolution) is another story. D3X is better than D3 if you do some NR (as D3 does on camera) and resize it to 12MP. D3X's problem is not image quality but something else like frame rate.

I think the D4 should have had a 30mp sensor but optimized the sensor for pixel binning at 15mp. That way the camera could have have the performance and ISO for the photojournalists and sports photographers, and also have the resolution for studio photographers.

Camera's with more advanced sensors have been binning pixels for years.

I'm actually disappointed in the D4. Seriously, internet shooting? What the point of that? A $6,000 security camera?

When someone start talking about "profits" you know where they come from. You want to talk technical specs, talk about it here. Your liberal cacophony on "profits" - there is a moronic blog in huffingtonpost. Feel "free" to go there. It is counter intuitive to say a lower technology will be sold to make "profit" if there is a competition which can deliver a better spec.

I have a D3s, and shoot in low light. It will take some convincing to make me believe this is better. Echoing some of the comments - the 2 different card types and lower battery life are definite minus'. While the D4 seems -video capability - conspiculously absent is it real time auto focus? Or the quasi-autofocus of the D3S? What I expected - the auto bracketing - let me set the auto bracketing to automatically use the continuous high or low shutter release to take the photos. (action sequences). I will want to see a serious Pro sport photog review of its performance. What does a low light action event shooter want to be able to do? preset as much as he can then focus, compose and shoot, otherwise he misses the action. Let me state a min shutter, and aperature range, and say where the guidelines should be for shutter. It picks within the range to capture at the lowest ISO in can preserving guidelines. Some - but not all is possible with the D3s. we are almost there.

The parts I found genuinely fascinating were their suggestions for very sensible future features that are not even being considered at all by existing camera manufactures.a)voice recognition, while shooting.b)the idea that the LCD could use facial recognition to tell if you were looking at it and turn on or brighten up (i think this is genius not just for cameras)c)the camera should take two frames in the same one shutter actuation to make a HDR type wide latitude image.d) huge rear LCD – touch screen.These guys are smarter than the whole camera industry put together. I wish they could make that camera!

Let me see. The "D800" has not been announced. And the D700 already vastly outperforms the D70. (Even if Nikon ships a 30MP "D800", Nikon is very likely to also ship a D700 replacement designed for lowlight say the "D700s".)

Last, nyphotos:

Okay then, from below, about going to medium format. Tell me how you like the Leica S2? It's not particularly good in lowlight, which you claim to shoot.

And it be a wee bit more pricey than the D70. The Leica sure has good dynamic range though. Better glass than Nikon too.

I have an old D70. It works great, but I really need to upgrade. Personally, looking at the D4, the only downfall was putting in the two different card slots. I liked the D3 and 3s where you could duplicate one CF to the other in case one went down. I love it, and will probably buy one once I have enough saved up (in about 6 months). I'm happy they kept it out of the 20's as far as MP goes. The more MP doesn't mean the better. Another GREAT review is here:http://www.bythom.com/d4intro.htmI understand cbaphoto about the video stuff, but I'm ok with that. EVERYONE is doing video and still now, it's just something we have to live with.I'm interested to see what the upcoming D800 has to offer, but I believe it won't be as good as the D700 in low light (which I do a lot of) and I think the D4 will kick it's ass and for another 2K, there's going to be quite the difference. Although the D800 will reportedly have MP in the 30's, if I wanted that many MP, I'd go to a medium format.Cheers!

I went from D70 to D3 after a lot of agonizing and it was soooo worth it. The D70 wasn't disappointing me in terms of image quality in adequate light. The MP bump didn't make a huge difference to me. Overall speed of operation especially autofocus and shutter lag, viewfinder size/brightness, LCD size/sharpness, and low sensor noise at high ISO were the things I loved most about the D3. The camera just never makes me wait. I moved to the D3S but since I don't have a lot of need for video it only made a big difference in those ultra low light situations. It wouldn't have killed me to skip a generation.From what I've read the D4 is targeted right at me with the improvements in low light autofocus and noise plus ergonomic tweaks.

I had D3s and wait for this for a long time. When it is out, there is not much improvement and it is very expensive. Only 16.2 MP compare to previous 12.1 MP. what is the selling point of this D4 compare now only its video is good. What a disappointment from Nikon. Worse is that we still need to buy accessories for wireless transfer for such a top range and expensive camera. Is it time to jump ship to canon...

I switched side to Canon for the 5DMKII, and got disappointed. The focusing is terrible, and noisy, my friend's D700 totally trashed my 5DMKII on 100% crop's nosies.Personally I believe that more pixel a camera has, if the pixel cannot be process properly by manufacturer's technology , it means "more nosies".I was very happy with my D300s, although 12mp, and now I am sad with my 21mp 5DMKII.When I have enough money I would get a D4 for sure (and you can see 1DX actually drop down to 16mp as well)

The D700 is marginally better than the 5D Mark 2. 1/3 of a stop better. The only camera with any sort of significant upgrade in low light to the 5D Mark II is the D3s, which is 4/5ths of a stop better. As for the focusing system, it isn't the best for sports that's true, but the center focus point is just fine for all other photography.

I've had money set aside for this release for a damn long time, and I'm just not impressed enough to spend it now. I've loved Nikon products since I was a kid. I was expecting something a lot grander out of the D4. Not sure what exactly, but I know I'm not seeing it. Frankly, I couldn't give less of a sh!+ about video. They should release two cameras when they do these things; A great camera for videographers who wannabe photographers but they're too lazy to capture the damn shot the right way, and a great camera for still photographers who already know what they're doing behind the lens. The D4 reminds of working on my '77 Chevy versus my '00 Chevy: I'll bet they could really do something great if they ripped out all that extra crap and put in something truly useful to compliment the drive train rather than bogging it down. I'm sure the D5 will have a pretty ridiculous price tag on it, but maybe it'll be worth it. My money will just have to keep gathering dust for the time being.

I'm always so impressed that some people can place a negative verdict about a camera they have never seen, held, or seen results from it.If you look at the quality of the camera's of today then it's very hard if not impossible to make huge improvements.Take 5 top camera's, make the same picture and print it on 1x1,5 meter and I dare every "specialist" to see the difference at a distance of 1 meter. I'm sure that no one can tell with picture comes from with camera.We all have preferences for one brand or another, but that doesn't mean that "not my brand" can't be good as well.

Kryten and Sjakie - Yes, you're right. I should have been very specific about the things I would like to see from the D4, now the D5, so that Nikon could ignore me and somebody with a bloated sense of self-worth could come in here and tell me how wrong I am. Brilliant. I wish I had thought of that.

@cbaphoto: so you think youre elite because youre to cool to shoot video, and video is only for guys that cant take a photo? ^^

and youre serious with that?

get over with, there are people that do both, and are good in both, if you want to make a film and own a bunch of nikon glass, why should you make a photo story out of it, when your intention was to make a film ?